PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[skid]

Sorry, you are mistaken
This thread was started by Hancocks hence the oblique reference to Hancocks half hour in the first post.
You really must keep up , skid

Well,I must say that would make sense--See what happens when people delete themselves--It erases history-(all that work down the gurgler)Its a shame I liked his posts and enjoyed occasional debates-It now says started by griffyn on the thread page--Guess its not the first time history has been rewritten---still 10yrs is a long time!

[Baa_Baa]

Game over.

All the user test programs in the world will not give urologists the confidence they need to avoid liability for misdiagnosis.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...t-of-mark.aspx

"“Urinary biomarkers miss 18% to 43% of patients with bladder cancer and are falsely positive in 12% to 26% of patients without bladder cancer”, write Chou et al.

They conclude: “The value of urinary biomarkers and whether they are sufficiently accurate to reduce the need for cystoscopy depends on the ability of clinicians to estimate the pretest probability of disease, the importance to patients and clinicians of relatively small changes in the probability of bladder cancer, and the acceptable threshold and clinical consequences of missed or delayed diagnoses and false-positive results.”

What is the credence of the analysis and how much weight does this report carry in the relevant circles?

[skid]

Game over.

All the user test programs in the world will not give urologists the confidence they need to avoid liability for misdiagnosis.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...t-of-mark.aspx

"“Urinary biomarkers miss 18% to 43% of patients with bladder cancer and are falsely positive in 12% to 26% of patients without bladder cancer”, write Chou et al.

They conclude: “The value of urinary biomarkers and whether they are sufficiently accurate to reduce the need for cystoscopy depends on the ability of clinicians to estimate the pretest probability of disease, the importance to patients and clinicians of relatively small changes in the probability of bladder cancer, and the acceptable threshold and clinical consequences of missed or delayed diagnoses and false-positive results.”

I believe the ''annals'' tests have been discussed before.
That ,with the AUA report are certainly the ''elephant in the room'' ie-we cant really assume ''gold standard'' anymore,and if in reality CX is better than the tests suggest-there are now alot more to convince.
If Kaiser comes up with similar results and decides not to go with it then it would be very slow going.
Instead of waiting for confirmation ,we are now waiting for a rescue--Im a bit surprised the forcasting crowd have not taken this on board(Edison is paid so I guess thats not surprising though)Forbar?
This is where Hancocks information would be interesting--that was his specialty.

[skid]

What is the credence of the analysis and how much weight does this report carry in the relevant circles?

thats a good question--what makes it a worry though is that the American Urological Ass. has come up with a similar report. (that one hurts)

[psychic]

Balance and Skid.
If you guys are going to spend so much of your life bashing this stock and saving the rest of us, then please put some effort in understanding it eh?

Look, there is no AUA report. The AUA put some questions up to the AHRQ to review data about BCa urinary biomarkers amongst other things. Chow et al then reviewed available Pubmed evidence and came up with a summary. They concluded that OVERALL, Urinary biomarkers missed a significant number of tumours. (They do, mostly TA , Tis - low grade cancers that won't kill) . CxBladder detect rated better than the other tests but with only one study published, the strength of evidence was considered too low to lift the very average performance of the other tests.

I actually sent you a copy of this AHRQ draft some 18 months ago skid.


So, firstly. There has not been an independent AUA report, you gurus and legends are getting excited about the same thing. Secondly, this is a summary only of the data published on pubmed. Okay? You understand they have not gone out and independently tested anything right?
Thirdly, the performance of CxBladder Detect, although better than the other biomarkers, has not been weighted in because there was only the one study published.
Four. The market for Urinary Biomarkers is already huge- and a summary document by AHRQ will not change that.
Last. This "report" does not consider CxBladder Triage AT ALL.

And you need to understand Triage and the space it has if you really are going to follow PEB.

[Crackity]

Balance and Skid.
If you guys are going to spend so much of your life bashing this stock and saving the rest of us, then please put some effort in understanding it eh?

Look, there is no AUA report. The AUA put some questions up to the AHRQ to review data about BCa urinary biomarkers amongst other things. Chow et al then reviewed available Pubmed evidence and came up with a summary. They concluded that OVERALL, Urinary biomarkers missed a significant number of tumours. (They do, mostly TA , Tis - low grade cancers that won't kill) . CxBladder detect rated better than the other tests but with only one study published, the strength of evidence was considered too low to lift the very average performance of the other tests.

I actually sent you a copy of this AHRQ draft some 18 months ago skid.


So, firstly. There has not been an independent AUA report, you gurus and legends are getting excited about the same thing. Secondly, this is a summary only of the data published on pubmed. Okay? You understand they have not gone out and independently tested anything right?
Thirdly, the performance of CxBladder Detect, although better than the other biomarkers, has not been weighted in because there was only the one study published.
Four. The market for Urinary Biomarkers is already huge- and a summary document by AHRQ will not change that.
Last. This "report" does not consider CxBladder Triage AT ALL.

And you need to understand Triage and the space it has if you really are going to follow PEB.

Quick question psychic and I mean no malice by this - doesn't that 18 months more or less 'wasted' , for want of a better word , worry you just a bit?

[psychic]

Quick question psychic and I mean no malice by this - doesn't that 18 months more or less 'wasted' , for want of a better word , worry you just a bit?

Not totally sure I follow fulla, but sure - holding PEB last 18 months def a waste of time SP wise. No argument there. I'm not defending anything, but this "report" should be understood for what it is. And what it means. The draft meant zip really, the final ,much the same. I had hoped that PEB might have been able to submit something further for inclusion in the final, but I'm not sure it quite works that way. Regardless, any CMS decision on coverage for CxBladder was not going to be influenced by this type of summary document, odd as that may sound.

[Leftfield]

Balance and Skid.
If you guys are going to spend so much of your life bashing this stock and saving the rest of us, then please put some effort in understanding it eh.

With so many PEB knockers around, it is nice to read your comments Psychic. Thank you.

[Balance]

With so many PEB knockers around, it is nice to read your comments Psychic. Thank you.

Knockers and bashers? Very emotive words indeed!

This is a company which has gone out of its way to hype its prospects, directors conveniently selling shares into the hype, fail to deliver, fail to account for why they are failing to deliver and keep going back to shareholders and the market for more funds.

Those of us taking the company to task and getting no answers are getting close to being labelled murderers!

More like realists for those who critically and objectively care to read how this company is going about 'commercializing' its products, and in the process, saving a lot of their $$$ from being vaporized by the company.

[Biscuit]

Knockers and bashers? Very emotive words indeed!

This is a company which has gone out of its way to hype its prospects, directors conveniently selling shares into the hype, fail to deliver, fail to account for why they are failing to deliver and keep going back to shareholders and the market for more funds.

Those of us taking the company to task and getting no answers are getting close to being labelled murderers!

More like realists for those who critically and objectively care to read how this company is going about 'commercializing' its products, and in the process, saving a lot of their $$$ from being vaporized by the company.

To be fair, of the three emotive words: "Knockers, bashers and murderers", Left Field only used the word "knockers" and of course that word has more than one meaning.